"faith of Jesus" / "faith in Jesus"

Status
Not open for further replies.

StephenMartyr

Puritan Board Freshman
I've kind of struggled a bit with the language in certain places in the NT concerning this phrase. If you take them literally, they mean two different things. In comparing the KJV with CSB here's this example [I'm not trying to be a Greek scholar here]:

Romans 3:22

KJV
"Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:..."

CSB
"The righteousness of God is through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe, since there is no distinction."

The first would be seen as the faith of Christ Himself. The second would be seen as us putting out faith in Him.

Here's the Greek for Rom. 3:22:

δικαιοσύνη δὲ Θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ...

In terms of finding something with "faith in", here's Ephesians 1:15"

"Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus..."
Διὰ τοῦτο κἀγώ, ἀκούσας τὴν καθ᾿ ὑμᾶς πίστιν ἐν τῷ Κυρίῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ...

One difference between the two is the "ἐν" word, which seems to mean "in" with using the StudyLite online program. But both verses have a slightly different word for "faith" in the Greek text on e-Sword despite both having the same word and strong number:

Romans 3:22: Greek text = πίστεως; KJV+Strong# = πίστις
Ephesians 1:15: Greek text =πίστιν; KJV+Strong# = πίστις

I don't know Greek so to me there seems to be discrepancies between the actual Greek text on e-Sword and the KJV+ Strong number words.

Is someone here able to clear this up? But more importantly how are these words interacting with one another so that the two translations, the KJV and the CSB (ESV also says in Jesus), are different?

The faith of Jesus compared with the seeming putting our faith in Jesus.

:duh:

Source for the Greek text is the e-Sword program. (e-Sword and this forum aren't really producing the same letters.)
 
Your observations are good! The problem here is not the preposition εν or δια, or the noun πιστις (the difference you noticed with this word is only inflection; the nouns are the same word).

The difficulty, rather, is in the wide range of meanings provided by the genitive Ιησου Χριστου. In the Ephesians passage, we see the dative form, which is a little more straight forward. But in the Romans occurrence, we see the genitive form, which introduces great ambiguity.

The genitive form in Greek is typically translated “of _______.” However, just as in English, “of” can mean many things, and can even be ambiguous. A bucket “of” metal can mean a bucket “made of” metal or a bucket “containing” metal. In the same way, in the Romans passage, it is not clear whether or not the genitive is objective (“faith in Jesus Christ”) or subjective/possessive (“Jesus Christ’s faith”). Speaking strictly in terms of syntax, either option is appropriate. It’s theology that will determine, in my view, the better rendering.

Does that make sense?
 
Your observations are good! The problem here is not the preposition εν or δια, or the noun πιστις (the difference you noticed with this word is only inflection; the nouns are the same word).

The difficulty, rather, is in the wide range of meanings provided by the genitive Ιησου Χριστου. In the Ephesians passage, we see the dative form, which is a little more straight forward. But in the Romans occurrence, we see the genitive form, which introduces great ambiguity.

The genitive form in Greek is typically translated “of _______.” However, just as in English, “of” can mean many things, and can even be ambiguous. A bucket “of” metal can mean a bucket “made of” metal or a bucket “containing” metal. In the same way, in the Romans passage, it is not clear whether or not the genitive is objective (“faith in Jesus Christ”) or subjective/possessive (“Jesus Christ’s faith”). Speaking strictly in terms of syntax, either option is appropriate. It’s theology that will determine, in my view, the better rendering.

Does that make sense?

So it's almost like the KJV is a more accurate translation, maintaining the ambiguity in the text rather than inserting one particular interpretation?:detective::detective::detective:
 
So it's almost like the KJV is a more accurate translation, maintaining the ambiguity in the text rather than inserting one particular interpretation?

Yes, I would agree—to an extent. It is hard to communicate an objective genitive in English with the “of + proper noun” construction. The KJV, I assume deliberately, comes close to maintaining this ambiguity by leaving out the definite article. If it were “the faith of Jesus,” then it would necessitate a subjective genitive.

I think the genitive in many cases is too ambiguous to translate rigidly, and that translations in general should therefore leave them vague. Another example is Romans 1:6. The ESV is correct, I think, to leave the phrase “obedience of faith,” whereas the NKJV made the strange decision to render it “obedience to the faith.”
 
Would it be permissable to understand the passage as referring to Christ's faith? Would that make sense in the passage? That His faith is righteoueness to the believer?
 
Would it be permissable to understand the passage as referring to Christ's faith? Would that make sense in the passage? That His faith is righteoueness to the believer?

I think the NET Bible's note on Romans 3:22 is informative here:

A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated “faith in Jesus Christ,” an increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that πίστις Χριστοῦ (pistis Christou) and similar phrases in Paul (here and in v. 26; Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and mean “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness” (cf., e.g., G. Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212–15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ,” NTS 35 [1989]: 321–42). Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when πίστις takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5). On the other hand, the objective genitive view has its adherents: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248–63; J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730–44. Most commentaries on Romans and Galatians usually side with the objective view.​
 
The faith of Christ as in Christ's faith makes me wary because I'm pretty sure that interpretation is used by the New Perspective on Paul folk to argue their case.
 
I think the NET Bible's note on Romans 3:22 is informative here:

A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated “faith in Jesus Christ,” an increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that πίστις Χριστοῦ (pistis Christou) and similar phrases in Paul (here and in v. 26; Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and mean “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness” (cf., e.g., G. Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212–15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ,” NTS 35 [1989]: 321–42). Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when πίστις takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5). On the other hand, the objective genitive view has its adherents: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248–63; J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730–44. Most commentaries on Romans and Galatians usually side with the objective view.​
It's worth noting that the CSB has a footnote "Or through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ", which flags the reader to the alternatives. Footnotes are a translators friend in cases of ambiguity, though editors rarely allow the number of footnotes translators would like.
 
Please clear something up for me. What would be the object of Christ’s faith? I understand “Christ’s faithfulness” but how does Christ possess faith? As is often the case, I’m confused:(
 
I don't know Greek, but it seems to me that the CSB is attempting to take out the reformed flavor of the text in Romans. Faith of Jesus would seem to show that saving Faith comes from Christ as a gift.
 
Please clear something up for me. What would be the object of Christ’s faith? I understand “Christ’s faithfulness” but how does Christ possess faith? As is often the case, I’m confused:(
Yes, Christ has faith, since faith is required by the moral law. As he said to the Pharisees, "You pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith." The object of his faith is all revealed truth, just as ours. The difference is his faith was not an instrument of justification, taking hold of an alien righteousness.
 
To me it seems the most plausible that the genitive is simply descriptive, giving a defining quality of the faith, that it is Christian. Genitives often serve to make nouns adjective-like. The phrase would then mean something like "the righteousness of Christ through Christian faith for all who believe".
 
To me it seems the most plausible that the genitive is simply descriptive, giving a defining quality of the faith, that it is Christian. Genitives often serve to make nouns adjective-like. The phrase would then mean something like "the righteousness of Christ through Christian faith for all who believe".

The problem here is that the noun in question (namely, πίστις) is a verbal noun. In other words, it is a noun that has an inseparable aspect of activity. It isn't like the word "bucket." One cannot "bucket" something.

Because this is a verbal noun, it is difficult to see the genitive as merely descriptive. It seems necessary, then, that it either be objective or subjective, like a verb. (All genitives are descriptive, by the way. They tell us something about the noun they modify. It is not a question of whether they are descriptive, but how they are.)
 
The problem here is that the noun in question (namely, πίστις) is a verbal noun. In other words, it is a noun that has an inseparable aspect of activity. It isn't like the word "bucket." One cannot "bucket" something.

Because this is a verbal noun, it is difficult to see the genitive as merely descriptive. It seems necessary, then, that it either be objective or subjective, like a verb. (All genitives are descriptive, by the way. They tell us something about the noun they modify. It is not a question of whether they are descriptive, but how they are.)
Ok, adjectival genitive then. I'm not following your point about it being "a verbal noun" or "objective or subjective like a verb". None of the dictionaries I've consulted list it as anything but a regular noun. Do you simply mean that it denotes an act, which must either have a (direct) object or not? In that case, neither my reading nor the reading of the genitive as possessive, which you call "subjective", have an object, so consider my reading a sort of "subjective" reading if you prefer, but I don't think it's correct to say my reading is invalid because it exists outside of that framework. Consider the word "trust". It's synonymous with πίστις, and it also denotes an act, but the phrase "Christian trust" is nevertheless totally coherent.
 
Ok, adjectival genitive then. I'm not following your point about it being "a verbal noun" or "objective or subjective like a verb". None of the dictionaries I've consulted list it as anything but a regular noun. Do you simply mean that it denotes an act, which must either have a (direct) object or not? In that case, neither my reading nor the reading of the genitive as possessive, which you call "subjective", have an object, so consider my reading a sort of "subjective" reading if you prefer, but I don't think it's correct to say my reading is invalid because it exists outside of that framework. Consider the word "trust". It's synonymous with πίστις, and it also denotes an act, but the phrase "Christian trust" is nevertheless totally coherent.

I’m not saying that your reasoning is invalid or incoherent, brother. All I am doing is telling you what the reasoning is for scholars to say that the genitive here is most likely either objective or subjective. I’m literally just repeating what I learned under world class Greek scholars. I’m not just making this up.

Regarding the phrase “verbal noun,” I thought I explained it adequately above. Of course the dictionaries and lexicons will indicate that πιστις is “just a regular noun.” But words are far more than just their grammatical function—noun, verb, adjective, etc. It is not a dictionary’s purpose to tell us every facet of every word. Trust me, the difficulty with this noun is it’s verbal quality.
 
Your observations are good! The problem here is not the preposition εν or δια, or the noun πιστις (the difference you noticed with this word is only inflection; the nouns are the same word).

The difficulty, rather, is in the wide range of meanings provided by the genitive Ιησου Χριστου. In the Ephesians passage, we see the dative form, which is a little more straight forward. But in the Romans occurrence, we see the genitive form, which introduces great ambiguity.

The genitive form in Greek is typically translated “of _______.” However, just as in English, “of” can mean many things, and can even be ambiguous. A bucket “of” metal can mean a bucket “made of” metal or a bucket “containing” metal. In the same way, in the Romans passage, it is not clear whether or not the genitive is objective (“faith in Jesus Christ”) or subjective/possessive (“Jesus Christ’s faith”). Speaking strictly in terms of syntax, either option is appropriate. It’s theology that will determine, in my view, the better rendering.

Does that make sense?

Thanks for your reply. It cleared it up a little bit. I'll keep looking into it! Thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top